Iran nuclear weapons 2
Welcome!
|
Uranium edit
The levels of permissible uranium enrichment and the locations of permissible uranium enrichment under the JCPOA are explained already in the article, in detail. We want to avoid redundancy, as I'm sure you'll agree. Neutralitytalk 19:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sometime in the next day, I'm going to expand the historical section of the JCPOA article somewhat to add some more context. I do think we may actually be able to hash this out. Neutralitytalk 19:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- The JCPOA does not confer a "right" to enrich uranium. The agreement acknowledges and permits certain levels of enrichment (although strictly constrained/monitored, and contingent on Iran meeting its obligations), but it is very important not to frame it as a "right" - because that is a very controversial legal and diplomatic position, involving international law (specifically, the interpretation of the NPT). This is a subtle point, but an important one. I've added a new, somewhat long note (footnote B) which explains this. Neutralitytalk 03:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Western acceptance of Iranian uranium enrichment edit
The article Western acceptance of Iranian uranium enrichment has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- unjusifiable split
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 16 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iran-IAEA side deals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Murphy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
August 2015 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)- This is clearly not a first account, and you acknowledge as much, but even if it's your third account (I just blocked User:Iran nuclear weapons) you still have to edit neutrally. Your article contributions, even your user name, are not neutral. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- More than my block, my immediate first concern is my user page. Please restore it. I DO NOT want to be connected, that's much more important than any block or not, someone just edited it to remove that statement; that's just wrong. I'll take a look at the block later. And yes, I am Iran nuclear weapons; not trying to hide that.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Iran nuclear weapons 2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
First of all, before evaluating this request, please restore to my user page my statement that I am a WP:VALIDALT and do not wish to be connected with my main account. I am happy to change my name, just tell me how. Re my contributions, I'd like to make a few observations. First of all, I actually agree that I have neutrality problems and have said so [1], asked others to help [2], and made changes intended to improve neutrality [3], although apparently they were not enough. In addition, when faced with disagreement, On multiple occasions, I have, after a certain amount of argument [4] [5], accepted the other parties' point [6] [7] [8] or backed down (i.e, not revert again) [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] (others warred but I didn't), which I understand is exactly what one is supposed to do. I would note that WP:POVFORK says explicitly that the person creating the fork is often acting in a sincere belief that the topic is encyclopedic. At the same time, I am accepting the community's judgement when it's gone against me. In regard to my contributions, I would like to point out multiple contributions which, I have to believe any fair-minded admin would agree, actually improved neutrality by adding missing information [14] [15] or correcting false information [16] [17] [18] or otherwise bringing something more in line with Wikipedia policies [19] [20]. That said, I think I've had more trouble in this regard when starting new articles than when contributing to existing ones; here is my proposal for an unblock. I will not create any new articles in this general topic area for six months. Lastly, I just want to say, accusations of paranoia in regards to Iran are out of place in light of stories like these: [21] [22]. I see that one user has taken to exaggerating my caution [23] as paranoia (and even re-inserting information which had apparently been revdelled); I would submit that, in this kind of matter, one simply can't be too careful; I realize perfectly well that the scenario is unlikely, but I still believe I should do everything possible to keep the risk down. Bottom line, I believe an evaluation of the overall picture with me would be of a user who does have NPOV problems, realizes it, has been making efforts to deal with it, although apparently not enough. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I see no evidence that this is a legitimate alternative account. The only possible argument could be a privacy one but that doesn't explain the choice to start User:Iran nuclear weapons 2/sandbox/fissile and other sandboxes and other arguments (especially without disclosing the main account). This is more like an bad hand account for controversial editing (with a disruptive username (namely a one-side reference to this controversy)) to keep the main account clean. If your main name is problematic, the process is at Wikipedia:Changing username and even then you must disclose any sock accounts you have before trying these kinds of stunts. So either you will go back to your main and edit there or you want to go back to your main but the username is so obvious that people will know who you are, whichever one it is, this is not the way to go. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Iran nuclear weapons 2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
(not actually an unblock request, but I want to get someone to honor my other request.) Fine, I'll give up on the unblock, and I'll take your statement "go back to your main" as a suggestion that editing from there would be a legit thing to do. but please restore to my user page my request that no one attempt to connect the accounts on wiki. Thank you. My apologies for using the unblock template for this -- is there a better way? Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have restored your userpage to an older version, without any other comment. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I just want to note for posterity that I have been quite clear from the get-go that this was an alternate account. [24] (it would have been immediately obvious to anyone that this and iran nuclear weapons were the same person.) As one can see from the diff, Wikipedia admin was initially accepting of the alternate, but at the end obviously not. From the above discussion, it seems that the intent of this block is to disallow the alternate account, but that Wikipedia is fine with me continuing to edit. I will abide by that. In return, I request that Wikipedia abide by my request not to try to connect the accounts. Thanks. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Pick an alternate name that isn't so immediately disruptive and you may have a chance at not bothering people so much. Otherwise, there's over 1500 admins, you're going to get a variation on opinions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)